Papaiyawala v. Saudi Arabian Airlines (E.D.V.A. Apr. 15, 2016). The plaintiffs, a married couple, had purchased tickets for the wife’s parents to travel from India to New York. Several days before the outbound flight, Saudia canceled the tickets in response to a fraud alert from the plaintiffs’ credit card company and then initiated the process of refunding the purchase price to the plaintiffs’ account.
The plaintiffs and the parents did not find out that the tickets had been canceled until the parents attempted to check in at the airport in India. Saudia informed the parents that they could travel on the flight at issue if they paid the difference between the then-current fare and the ticketed fare, but the parents declined this offer and made alternate travel arrangements. About two weeks later, the refund for the tickets was credited to the plaintiffs’ credit card account.
The plaintiffs filed a state court action seeking damages of $5,000 for the mental stress, embarrassment and inconvenience that their parents experienced as a result of the airline’s cancelation of the tickets. Saudia removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, contending that the plaintiffs’ claim was for delay and thus exclusively governed by Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, which did not provide any relief for the plaintiffs. Saudia made a compelling argument to distinguish the cases holding that boarding denial claims are not governed by Article 19 because such claims seek relief for contractual nonperformance, not delay; Saudia argued that, by the time the parents attempted to check in for the flight, there was no longer any contract in existence because Saudia had already canceled the tickets and initiated the refund. Saudia then contended that the plaintiffs could not recover under Article 19 because damages for purely mental injuries are not recoverable under the Convention.
As a secondary argument, Saudia contended that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue for any mental injuries that the parents had sustained.
The court concurred with Saudia’s Montreal Convention argument and rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that they had actionable claims under 14 C.F.R. § 250.5 and 14 C.F.R. § 259.8. Accordingly, the court dismissed the case and denied leave to amend the complaint. The court did not discuss Saudia’s standing argument.